written about and talked about and people who are up for election? was this just an inevitable outgrowth of our part of the culture that talks about these issues this way? >> guest: i think to a large extent yes and if you look historically, it hasn't changed much over even the last 200 years. this kind of eerie propagandistic view of history. even while that history was being made, people were very propagandist. people were propagandist about washington and jefferson and what they meant. so yes, i do think that's part of the genre. and i think that part of the genre needs to be people like me, writing correctives and saying if this is where you are getting your history, it's wrong or it's not wrong, it's at least much more complicated than it's being made out to be. >> host: while we are talking about this point of being more complicated, let's say they have very good copy editors who went back and said instead of the founders, many of the founder said something or most of the founders or it was a common opinion at the time. with that simple change of phrasing the enough to sa

for election and trying to sell books? is this an inevitable outgrowth of our culture? >> guest: to a large extent, yes, the discourse has not changed much over the last 200 years. this kind of very propagandaistic use of people and -- so, yes, i do think that is part of the genre. and i think that part of the genre needs to be people like me writing correctives and saying, this is -- if this is where groating your history, is a wrong, or if not wrong, it's at least much more complicated than it's being made out to be. >> let me talk about this point about it being more complicated. let's say they had very good copy editors who went back and said, instead of the founders said x, say said many hoff the founders said something, or most of the founderes, it was a common opinion at the time. would that simple kind of change of phrasing be enough to satisfy you or is there a deeper concern? no i think that would totally eliminate the utility of what i call the founder's dying monster. >> host: a wonderful metaphor. >> guest: when i first decided to do this i was going to write a blog, and

up and conflict as we were but this is the major, the major issue and 1800 e. election and in the 1828 election that was under jackson versus john quincy adams. this question of our weak one nation or a bunch of states? this is what decided the federalist and antifederalist and supporting the constitution and the republicans in the founding and one united the whigs in to the democrats in the next generation. we have always had some people who see the united states primarily as a group of states in contact with each other and who see it as a union and the idea that the founders had a coherent position about state rights and all of them were killed the same thing i think requires you to pretend that they didn't have elections back then because that is what their actions were about. >> host: different parties wanted different things. i think that generally the southerners or more confederate. they saw this more of a compact states, the northerners i think or more as a nation. hamilton very much. hamilton was all still monarchist. hamilton solve this very much as a union. i think ther

won the election i think i would probably have given up giving up on the american people, but what he kept saying, and he proved right again, she kept saying change and the impetus for change arrives in the most unpredictable way that the most unpredictable time it's the workers strike start taking place throughout american history that have sales. but some of them have succeeded if there was one powerful union movement in the united states alas now something like 11 or 12% of the workers are unionized and that's all but there are some signs of a rebirth, too. and who would have predicted occupy wall street. to me that came out of nowhere just as my optimism was lower and lower into the ground and they think my god a whole new generation coming and it really looks like this generation is going to be different. and in every poll that i've seen regardless of the question like do you think they should be allowed to married officially it's the 26 age cohort in all of the pros and all of the polls for the most progressive policies and it tends to be that as you move into the older age grou

temperamental optimist. but if robbie had won the election a think i would probably have given up, meaning a would have given up on the american people. but what howard kept saying, and he proved right again late kept saying change and the a battista change will rise in the most unpredictable ways at the most unpredictable times. it is quite true that most of the worker strikes that have taken place throughout american history have failed. but some of them have succeeded, and there was one, a powerful union movement. something like 11 or 12% of workers are unionized, but there are signs of their reverse. who would have predicted occupy wall street? to me that came out of nowhere, just as much optimism was sinking lower and lower into the ground, suddenly there is occupy wall street. my god. a new generation, and it looks like this generation is going to be different. and in every policy regardless of the question asked, it is always that 18-26 age cohort, all of the polls that have the biggest majority for the most progressive policies. and it tends to be and as you move into older age group